Author
Topic: 2016 Rules Changes (Read 18418 times)

My personal thought is that we need to eliminate the "big hit" from football. The leading hands rule is nice, but lets make that the rule at all times. If you're leading with your shoulder, arms in your own chest, and just looking to pop a guy... . Blindside, above the shoulders, "targeting", crown of the helmet -- that no longer matters. If you aren't trying to wrap up and tackle, then you're trying to put a hurt on somebody which is what we're trying to remove.

It all depends what you mean by the "Big Hit", which come in either of 2 fashions; Legal and Illegal, and frankly it's our job to be able to tell the difference. No question; Targeting, Head Hunting, Unnecessary Roughness and Cheap Shots are "ILLEGAL" should be, and usually are penalized and should be strictly enforced. Over correction is not the answer.

"Wrapping Up" is probably the most effective way in assuring a tackle accomplishes the intended objective, but isn't always possible, or practical. Removing the illegal contacts from the game is a never ending objective we ALL pursue, but over reacting and trying to micromanage everything to try and eliminate ALL risk will serve only to ruin the game.

The long time philosophy of thoroughly understanding what we're looking for, and being absolutely convinced of what we have actually seen and then enforcing what we've observed consistently seems like still being the most effective way to monitor and respond to inappropriate (illegal) behavior.

If totally eliminating any and all risk from and and all physical contact is the objective, Flag and/or Touch Football is the way to go, but even there, sometimes things don't go exactly as planned, or intended.

No one is attempting to turn the game into Flag and/or Touch as you suggest.

While it has always been legal to to take an opponent out of the play, it has NEVER been legal to take an opponent out of the game!

The "Stadium Hits", which commonly occur during open field Blindside Block situations are NOT being eliminated rather we are simply looking at putting "re-stricter plates" on the blockers.

The question is this: Is it really necessary to hit a defenseless opponent with such force that it puts him into the third row and then into the hospital when you could have accomplished the same goal be simply setting a basketball screen?

No one is attempting to turn the game into Flag and/or Touch as you suggest.

While it has always been legal to to take an opponent out of the play, it has NEVER been legal to take an opponent out of the game!

Is this a new concept, or is this a basic understanding every football official is supposed to have clearly understood for the past 100+ years?

The current focus is a clear REMINDER of what we are ALL supposed to know, understand and enforce WHEN NECESSARY. Over reacting to this focus can be just as harmful to this game as anyone who may have been shirking their responsibility to deal with or minimize ILLEGAL contacts before. Our job is NOT to decide what should be eliminated, it is simply to enforce the rules, AS WRITTEN & INTENDED CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY

It all depends what you mean by the "Big Hit", which come in either of 2 fashions; Legal and Illegal, and frankly it's our job to be able to tell the difference. No question; Targeting, Head Hunting, Unnecessary Roughness and Cheap Shots are "ILLEGAL" should be, and usually are penalized and should be strictly enforced. Over correction is not the answer.

"Wrapping Up" is probably the most effective way in assuring a tackle accomplishes the intended objective, but isn't always possible, or practical. Removing the illegal contacts from the game is a never ending objective we ALL pursue, but over reacting and trying to micromanage everything to try and eliminate ALL risk will serve only to ruin the game.

The long time philosophy of thoroughly understanding what we're looking for, and being absolutely convinced of what we have actually seen and then enforcing what we've observed consistently seems like still being the most effective way to monitor and respond to inappropriate (illegal) behavior.

If totally eliminating any and all risk from and and all physical contact is the objective, Flag and/or Touch Football is the way to go, but even there, sometimes things don't go exactly as planned, or intended.

I can't believe I agree with Al for once. As the targeting rule is only getting worse with each passing year, eventually college football will be reduced to flag football. This is ruining football for everyone and it needs to end.

I'm fully in agreement with KWH on this . Where KWH was the heroic author of the rule outlawing the Oregonian Flea Flicker, I wish to appoint him to begin work on a documentary entitled: GRIDIRON EDIQUETTE - BE A NICE PLAYER. Hopefully he will recognize his buddies at Refstripes in the lists of credits.

Is this a new concept, or is this a basic understanding every football official is supposed to have clearly understood for the past 100+ years?

ALF -No, It is not a new concept! Rather, it it is/was simply intended to focus attention to new (2015) NFHS wording Excessive Contact!Excessive Contact has now been around for barely one 1 year but seems to get excluded from your daily diatribes.

Excessive Contact has now been around for barely one 1 year but seems to get excluded from your daily diatribes.

Sorry KWH, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it, has been a fundamental responsibility for a lot longer than either one of us has been paying attention to the rules of the game of football.

Sorry KWH, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it, has been a fundamental responsibility for a lot longer than either one of us has been paying attention to the rules of the game of football.

Sorry ALF, but;While it may have been a fundamental responsibility in your mind, it was not, and quite frankly still is not, in the minds of many who have been working and implementing the rules of the game of football, even though the wording was officially added to Rule 9-4-3g in 2015.

Sorry ALF, but;While it may have been a fundamental responsibility in your mind, it was not, and quite frankly still is not, in the minds of many who have been working and implementing the rules of the game of football, even though the wording was officially added to Rule 9-4-3g in 2015.

Are we both referencing AMERICAN Football? An excellent history of "The Game" it's rules and their enforcement can be found in the 2009-2010 NFHS Handbook, which suggests in "History of the Game, Rules Part II"; "Football is a contact sport which demands discipline. Vigorous contact is encouraged, but rough tactics and unfair play are prohibited. this has been so since the reformation (of the rules) of 1906"

This NFHS Handbook includes a chronology of rule changes from 1860 through 2009. Changes made after 1932 reflect action of the NFHS Football Rules Committee only.

A small sampling of major rule revisions regarding different examples of "Illegal" (excessive) contact and safety measures include;

These are just a few of the almost constant adjustments to the NFHS rules that have been made EACH YEAR regarding issues dealing with various types of contacts that have been considered to be Illegal and "Excessive".

The manual goes on to discuss in some detail the individual histories, reasons and expectations of rule adjustments relating to specific fouls for different types of "excessive/ Illegal" contacts, and indicates, "The NFHS Rules Committee has pledged to continue its unending effort to make the game of football as safe for participants as possible by rule implementation.", with heavy emphasis to the dangers of various types of helmet contacts as a special point of concern.

In fact, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it" has been a primary concern of the NFHS Rules Committee since 1932, and of the game of American Football dating back 110 years, and will very likely continue being so for the foreseeable future.

In 1906, TR said our game was too dangerous and needed to change. Recently Obama said that if he had a son he wouldn't allow him to play football. Do any of you perceive legislation passed/proposed in the direction of changing football??

Some other "sports" one could consider dangerous :

Rugby - football without pads and forward progress never ends. Rodeo - playing with animals bigger than you doesn't always have a happy ending. Roller derby- moving fast with no pads Rollerball - (movie) sudden death defined. Barrel rolling- climb in a barrel and roll down a rocky hill. Can also be attempted w/o barrel. Can crunching - crushing an empty beer can on ones forehead. Be sure the can's empty. Mumblers peg - throwing your jackknife at the other guy's foot : Rules:(1) knife must stick in ground, (2) knife must not stick in the other guy's foot, (3) closest wins. Puke party - drink a shot of a common adult beverage per minute. Game ends after all but one have puked. That person is declared the winner and receives the "Iron Gut Jug."

I'm sure many of you can think of many more ......

DISCLAIMER: The above mentioned sports/events are not endorsed by the NFHS, NCAA, NFL, AFL/CIO,ASPCA, MPA and the like; but merely the mutterings of an ole' watching the clock pass noon on Friday

CAUTON : the above sports/events should only be attempted by trained professionals. DO NOT TRY THESE AT HOME.

Are we both referencing AMERICAN Football? An excellent history of "The Game" it's rules and their enforcement can be found in the 2009-2010 NFHS Handbook, which suggests in "History of the Game, Rules Part II"; "Football is a contact sport which demands discipline. Vigorous contact is encouraged, but rough tactics and unfair play are prohibited. this has been so since the reformation (of the rules) of 1906"

This NFHS Handbook includes a chronology of rule changes from 1860 through 2009. Changes made after 1932 reflect action of the NFHS Football Rules Committee only.

A small sampling of major rule revisions regarding different examples of "Illegal" (excessive) contact and safety measures include;

These are just a few of the almost constant adjustments to the NFHS rules that have been made EACH YEAR regarding issues dealing with various types of contacts that have been considered to be Illegal and "Excessive".

The manual goes on to discuss in some detail the individual histories, reasons and expectations of rule adjustments relating to specific fouls for different types of "excessive/ Illegal" contacts, and indicates, "The NFHS Rules Committee has pledged to continue its unending effort to make the game of football as safe for participants as possible by rule implementation.", with heavy emphasis to the dangers of various types of helmet contacts as a special point of concern.

In fact, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it" has been a primary concern of the NFHS Rules Committee since 1932, and of the game of American Football dating back 110 years, and will very likely continue being so for the foreseeable future.

ALF -

Facts are Facts and even YOU can not argue with facts!!!Since, based on your long diatribe, you are interested in facts think about this:FACT 1: Your 2009-2010 Handbook was revised, reprinted and replaced with the 2011-2012 Handbook, which was revised, reprinted and replaced by the 2013-2014 Handbook, which was revised, reprinted and replaced by the most current version, the2015-2016 Handbook, of which I will forgo republishing highlights of 2010 thru 2014 and go directly to:FACT 2: 2015 -Excessive Contact added to the unnecessary roughness provisions

Consider this play: During a punt return by R1, R2 lines up and commits a vicious slobber-knocker, (Aka a Stadium Hit) block on K5. The block was from the side and was within five yards of runner R1, clearing the way for R1 to score. The fans of R shout "hooray" while the fans of K boo loudly, shout cheap shot, that's "#$%^&" football and other non-congratulatory comments.

For many years this type of hit was considered legal was referred to as a "right of passage" or perhaps "that's just football!", or one of my all time favorites, "it just goes to show you need to have your head on a swivel!"Sure the game was stopped for the ambulance to come on the field and cart K5 off to the hospital. It looks bad for K5. His mom is on the field, his dad is asking why no penalty?Sure K5 never may never play organized football again but that's just football.

The officials gather by the ambulance and discuss the play. The H thinks it should be called "Unnecessary Roughness!" The B adds "How can you say it was Unnecessary? Of course it was Necessary, as without it, K5 would have made the tackle and saved the touchdown".The L says well sure it was necessary, but R2 could have set a basketball screen and accomplished the same result. The coach of K tells the officials "That just can't be legal".The R responds with "it is legal until they change the rule".

In 2015 The rules committee got the message and added the words Excessive Contact.So, should the above play happens in today's game, based on the new words "Excessive Contact" many believe the officials would be obliged to call the hit "excessive contact", and the touchdown would be nullified.

Yes, ALF, while many, (yourself included) felt this was a foul prior to 2015, many more did not.And, while the words are now in the Rules Book, many more than before agree it is a foul today, but alas, still many do not and continue to feel, "That's just football!"

Sorry for the long post, but "occasionally" long posts are necessary!"

Wow, talk about "diatribes", I guess you're just not going to let this poor horse rest in peace. If you want to debate "word smithing". I'm not your guy, but your suggestion that officials being responsible and observant for excessive "contact" (and/or behavior) is something new, is simply wrong, and actually silly.

I presumed NFHS had continued to publish Handbooks after 2009-10, but for reasons beyond my pay grade, our organization stopped supplying them after that edition, which I conceded was likely a self inflicted wound.

I'm not sure exactly what a "snot-locker block" entails, but I have long had a fair understanding of what "unnecessary" encompasses, which this year added the word "excessive" to NFHS: 9.4.3.g, and I thougt explained well in the 2015 Points of Emphasis, which I would suggest reinforced and underscored MY understanding of the rules intent, rather than add some previously unknown element to the issue.

I guess, if the addition of that word provided a new bolt of bright light to YOUR understanding of that rules intent, players in games you work will be safer than they were previously, while you labored in the shadows, which is certainly a good thing. Fortunately, for me, the vast amount of officials I've had the pleasure of working with have enjoyed working in well lit environments throughout their careers, and the addition of this word may well fine tune their understanding, but is absolutely NOTHING NEW.

If you choose to see this affirmation as some new challenge to radically change the game, and save it from itself, perhaps your future lays more towards journalism and your personal sense of political correctness, but is not intended to radically change the game which has always, does and will likely continue to involve serious physical contact and collisions, up to those deemed excessive. unnecessary (avoidable, dangerous or any adjective describing Illegal, to the game)

Sometimes "JUDGING" actions in real time requires a greater level of assessment regarding intent and the actual capability of adhering STRICTLY to a written definition, which may unfortunately generate emotional, uneducated comments from observers, who bear no defined responsibilities of impartiality or rule compliance. Spectators, among other observers, enjoy, and are generally allowed, a greater level of freedom of expression than game officials, as part of their overall experience and enjoyment, that officials need to learn to generally ignore.

For those of us who may not have understood the intent and purpose of this rule fully before, addition of the word "excessive" may prove beneficial as clarification is always helpful, for the majority of us it's added reassurance to what we've long been concentrating on serves to underscore our understanding of it's long established purpose.

Not always, Curious, I've learned an awful lot from people who have disagreed with me, and have been able to show me, or explain, where their perspectives made more sense or provided an insight I hadn't previously considered. Perhaps some day you'll be better able to defend, or explain your positions to the point you're persuasive enough to convince me, which will make us both smarter and better off.

"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good." - Vince Lombardi

KWH & AL-NY are from opposite shores of our great nation and both love football but the colloquialism of the Queen's English may cause some friction. What some recognize as a "slobber-knocker block" may be recognized by others as a "snot-locker block". We Mainers might describe a similar event as : "He knocked the 'tatters and chowdah out of him".

Here's a Maine colloquialism, see if you can tell me what it means:

" 'Spect I'm a little spleeny so I set on the piazza with a chug of hard stuff and watch the grass grow."